invariance_monitor_pause

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: that the monitor's spec is preserved (reversible) and that it stops firing. It does not disclose edge cases (e.g., already-disabled monitors) but covers the key behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the pointer to resume. No fluff, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, effect, and reversibility. It lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., invalid id) or id format, but these are minor for this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single required 'id' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly define 'id', but the tool name and context make it evident that it is the monitor's identifier. This is sufficient for a trivial single-parameter tool, but the description could have explicitly stated it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Disable a monitor'), the target resource (monitor), and the effect ('stops firing'). It also notes that the spec is preserved, distinguishing it from destructive operations like delete. The mention of resume as a counterpart further clarifies its role among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names invariance_monitor_resume as the alternative for re-enabling, giving a clear when-to-use condition. However, it doesn't discuss other alternatives like update or delete, leaving some inference to the agent about when pause is preferred over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.